Grossi Development LLC had proposed constructing 44 single-family homes as part of a low-income housing development in Rehoboth, Massachusetts. Grossi filed an application in 1999 for a comprehensive development permit, but the permit was denied. Multiple appeals followed, eventually resulting in the issuance of “some form of comprehensive permit.” Ten years later, in 2009, the Conservation Commission denied the permit because the project would encroach on wetlands.
Plaintiff brought equal protection, substantive and procedural due process claims against the Zoning Board of Appeals and the Conservation Commission, alleging that the permit denial resulted from the personal opposition of town officials and Zoning Board members, which plaintiff believed was racially motivated. These officials allegedly made remarks about the project such as “[W]e are not going to allow Rehoboth to become South Providence,” which plaintiff claimed was a “coded reference to race.” Further, plaintiff claimed he was denied an opportunity to be heard by the Zoning Board on his initial permit application in 1999. For these reasons, plaintiff claimed the denial of his permit violated equal protection and substantive and procedural due process rights guaranteed by the Constitution.
However, the court held that the plaintiff failed to state a claim of procedural due process violation, noting that factual allegations were “scarce.” The court also held that plaintiff provided insufficient evidence of a substantive due process violation since the “sole non-conclusory allegation” of discriminatory intent was the remark that “[W]e are not going to allow Rehoboth to become South Providence,” which plaintiff had not attributed to any individual person at any specific time or place. Failing to find “adequate factual heft” to support plaintiff’s claims, the defendant’s motion to dismiss was allowed.
Grossi Development LLC v. Town of Rehoboth, 2011 WL 3797740 (D.Mass. 8/25/11)
The opinion can be accessed here
